Comments on: Tea with the Pushkins in Brusselshttp://www.openlettersmonthly.com/tea-with-the-pushkins-in-brussels/
Just another WordPress weblogThu, 26 Mar 2015 00:59:44 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1By: Ludmila Pachepskyhttp://www.openlettersmonthly.com/tea-with-the-pushkins-in-brussels/comment-page-1/#comment-45388
Sun, 23 Jun 2013 16:01:39 +0000http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/?p=21771#comment-45388I’d like to comment on the Russian idea “Pushkin is our everything”. A lot had been said about it already; I think it’s important to emphasize two very important points that were made recently.
First, “Boris Godunov” written in 1825 in Mikhaylovskoe exile. When Pushkin finished it he exclaimed: “Ай-да Пушкин! Ай-да сукин сын!” (Heigh! Pushkin! Heigh, son-of-a-bitch!) He did not expect himself that he would create such a wonderful thing. And still he probably underestimated it. Of course, it’s literally wonderful and this tragedy written under the influence of Karamzin’s “History of the Russian State” is unsurpassed work of a historian who has a unique understanding of the nature of Russian people, State, power, society. But the most amazing thing is that this vision can be extrapolated in time! See the film by Mirzoiev “Boris Godunov” (2011) http://videozal.net/3387-boris-godunov-2011.html and you will see that the contemporary Russian society did not changed in its core. The “stage” for the tragedy is contemporary Moscow, and every Pushkin’s word sounds in the film, and it sounds like if it was written about Moscow in 2000s! In 1837 Russia lost not only the great poet but also the great historian; he only began his studies for future historical works. See, for example, “Kapitanskaya dochka, The Daughter of the Capitan”.
Second, the interpretation of the poem “Bronze Horseman”. There are all kinds of explanations in the literature, theater, etc. Since all Pushkin’s serious works are multi-faceted, all the explanation are acceptable but none can explain the whole poem. Lately I came across something new. For some other research, I was reading one after another the issues of the journal “Questions in the Literature (Вoпросы Литературы)” for the last decade. I’d like to mention en passant that among more than 50 issues I looked through there was no single one that would not contain an article about Pushkin. But one really made a huge impression on me, the article by А.Перзеке, Поэтика антиутопии в поэме А.С. Пушкина «Медный Всадник», как русская весть миру: взгляд из наших дней. «Вопросы Литературы» № 3, 2008. ( A. Perzeke, Poetics of the anti-utopia in then poem by A.S. Pushkin “Bronze Horseman” as a Russian message to the world: considering it from the contemporary point of view”). The author shows quite convincingly that this poem is the first work in a genre of anti-utopia in the Russian literature. The next one which is considered the first in this genre being “Pit” by Andrey Platonov written in 1930. Utopia is the genre well known in the West but not anti-utopia. I might be mistaken, then correct me please, but I cannot think of any real anti-utopia in the Western literature. I guess, it was not needed because in the West, utopia never came true. In Russia it did, and Platonov had good reasons to write his novel. Perzeke explains that Peter the Great had an utopian plan described in the Introduction into the poem, and with all his mighty power and strength, he made it to come true as a city of Saint Petersburg that theoretically was not possible to build on those swamps, many people lost their lives in this undertaking. Then Pushkin shows the beauty of Saint Petersburg, and the poem itself shows a disaster, a flood, a danger of which was always present in this region. Then Pushkin shows another Saint Petersburg, Saint Petersburg of a miserable guy Evgeny, a “little person”, Saint Petersburg of the poor people who perished in the flood. Later, as we know, it became Saint Ppetersburg of Dostoevsky and Chekhov also full of sufferings and misery. In other words, Pushkin, in view of Perzeke, had created the first anti-utopia, 100 yeas ahead of the birth of the genre itself. He is our everything! Isn’t he?
My heart does not accept, actually, this explanation of the “Bronze Horseman”. Rightly or wrongly, I highly appreciate what Peter the Great did for Russia, pushing its development far ahead, I love Saint Petersburg. But my mind cannot reject this explanation, it’s logically consistent.
]]>By: Ludmila Pachepskyhttp://www.openlettersmonthly.com/tea-with-the-pushkins-in-brussels/comment-page-1/#comment-45380
Sun, 23 Jun 2013 14:37:49 +0000http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/?p=21771#comment-45380Yes, he was born in 1899 and died in 1977. From 1940 to 1958 he was giving brilliant (yet quite subjective but very interesting! They are published.) lectures in American Universities. Yes, Nabokov was a zoologist only much more known as a writer, he did it better. In zoology, he was rather a collector (of butterflies. Young in 1950s in his 50s? For the writer, I guess, yes, we can say he was young; at least I would not object to this statement. When I was 18, and my friend 28 years old came to pick me up for a walk along the Odessa streets, my landlady used to make fun of me calling him my boyfriend. I never objected but was very angry with her. “He is so old! – I thought, – How can she think he might be my boyfriend?” Now in my 60s I don’t think 28 is very old, :), even 50.
]]>By: Ludmila Pachepskyhttp://www.openlettersmonthly.com/tea-with-the-pushkins-in-brussels/comment-page-1/#comment-45374
Sun, 23 Jun 2013 11:51:42 +0000http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/?p=21771#comment-45374You are right about the Slavic languages. But I would not overestimate this notoriously “famous” factor as so called “mysterious Russian soul”. This is rather for the nationalists and for those who tend to justify unjustifiable in Russian life and especially politics. Of course, it does exist, the unique Russian soul described brilliantly by Pushkin, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and tens of other great Russian writers, the contemporary ones among them. But Russians are not the only nation that possesses the soul. Every nation does. There exist the unique American soul, French, German – you name it! And they are all different as different are various individuals’ souls. Those who really want to understand another soul, even quite different from his/her own one, can succeed provided their mind is completely open; not judging, comparing – just trying to understand, to find what quality of the other soul is the most attractive.
But translation, especially translation of the poetry, requires talent, not just for the poetry but for (1) complete understanding of the source and (2) for ability to create in another language equally or almost equally great masterpieces. There are such translators – Samuil Marshak (his Shakespeare’s sonnets translation is the best, in my mind), Nora Gal’ (who translated many great writers, for instance, Saint-Exupery), many others. With all due respect, I think that Nabokov was a bad translator, his translation of Eugeny Onegin is, in my humble opinion, the worst. Only in 1976 Charles Johnston translated “EO” properly. It’s amazing translation, really very close to the original! Judging from the cover, Michael read this particular translation, my congratulations, you found the best way to know Pushkin and his masterpiece! All is possible even in translation, just the right person is supposed to come into this world and do this for real great writers, poets especially.
]]>By: Ludmila Pachepskyhttp://www.openlettersmonthly.com/tea-with-the-pushkins-in-brussels/comment-page-1/#comment-45371
Sun, 23 Jun 2013 11:23:43 +0000http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/?p=21771#comment-45371There is no contradiction in these statements. Yes, Pushkin owed serfs, he owed several villages. And yes, a substantial part of his income came from his publications. First, he was a high level aristocrat in his rank and was supposed to maintain a certain lifestyle. He was expected to appear in Tsar’s court, especially after he married, and his beautiful wife was the most popular beauty in St Petersburg, Tsar himself demanded her permanent presence at the court. He has been appointed by His Majesty a “camer-yunker”, a position too low for Pushkin but he could not ignore it and had to show up at many occasions. He had to maintain high level living in both St Petersburg and Moscow. His wife did not bring any dowry; Pushkin was supporting a big family – his parents and Natalia’s sisters. The income he got from his landownership was rather modest, not enough for that, and his publications provided not yet sufficient but quit substantial income. Not all landowners were equal. In the south of Russia, on high quality soils with good for agriculture climate, landowners were often very wealthy provided their properties, serfs and lands, were well managed. Good example was Pestel, one of the five leaders of the Decembrists movement, another – Turgenev. Often landowners squeezed all they could from their “property” – serfs – although there were quite liberal and kind to their serfs landowners too (let us not judge them using the standards of the USA society in 21st century, their moral standards were different). Pushlin’s lands were poor in productivity, located in the regions of risky agriculture, even for 19th century, relatively poorly managed, and Pushkin was quite liberal to his people. His villages could not provide good enough income for him, and he was struggling financially all the time. Of course, it was about “too small pearls”, not about “too thin soup” but he was a Russian noble landowner (“pomeshchik”) as many of the Decembrists. Their liberal ideas of freedom, for their serfs also, did not contradict their being people owners.
]]>By: Grace Bellohttp://www.openlettersmonthly.com/tea-with-the-pushkins-in-brussels/comment-page-1/#comment-37372
Tue, 02 Apr 2013 19:23:40 +0000http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/?p=21771#comment-37372[…] look at the omnipresent cultural status of Pushkin in […]
]]>By: Gabor Kristofhttp://www.openlettersmonthly.com/tea-with-the-pushkins-in-brussels/comment-page-1/#comment-29563
Sun, 27 Jan 2013 02:40:59 +0000http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/?p=21771#comment-29563Very poor piece of work. More of gossiping then exploring. Kind of sad actually.
]]>By: Cabinet | Notes from 21 South Streethttp://www.openlettersmonthly.com/tea-with-the-pushkins-in-brussels/comment-page-1/#comment-29198
Mon, 21 Jan 2013 21:51:20 +0000http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/?p=21771#comment-29198[…] Johnson unpacks the myth of Alexander Pushkin: a delightful piece of […]
]]>By: JustASideNotehttp://www.openlettersmonthly.com/tea-with-the-pushkins-in-brussels/comment-page-1/#comment-28856
Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:32:05 +0000http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/?p=21771#comment-28856Enjoyed reading this article. Reading about Pushkin is always interesting, but this piece also solved a longtime puzzle of mine. When I came to the States (from China) in 2006 for graduate school, I was shocked to find in a casual chat with an American classmate that she had never heard of Pushkin. That was a graduate program in humanities/social science, not engineering. I supposed that my classmates should have been familiar with major literary figures, at least from major European literary traditions. Now I understand how little exposure Pushkin had received in the US. He is definitely a huge name in China. There is a statue of him in my home city, like in many other cities in the world.
]]>By: Igor Adelmanhttp://www.openlettersmonthly.com/tea-with-the-pushkins-in-brussels/comment-page-1/#comment-28572
Sat, 12 Jan 2013 07:21:52 +0000http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/?p=21771#comment-28572Russian does not drink tea from glasses. This is a myth.
In a glass of tea is served only in the trains.
]]>By: Zapienshttp://www.openlettersmonthly.com/tea-with-the-pushkins-in-brussels/comment-page-1/#comment-28483
Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:34:39 +0000http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/?p=21771#comment-28483Vladimir Nabokov, […] a young writer-zoologist in the 1950s.

Nabokov was born in 1899.

]]>By: bewhatwedohttp://www.openlettersmonthly.com/tea-with-the-pushkins-in-brussels/comment-page-1/#comment-28407
Wed, 09 Jan 2013 13:37:32 +0000http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/?p=21771#comment-28407Interesting article – am recently re-discovering Pushkin and enjoying it (in Russian and English). There is also an interesting chapter on Pushkin and all of the various shenanigans he got up to in Odessa, in the book Odessa by Charles King.
]]>By: The Pushkin industry | bewhatwedohttp://www.openlettersmonthly.com/tea-with-the-pushkins-in-brussels/comment-page-1/#comment-28406
Wed, 09 Jan 2013 13:34:50 +0000http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/?p=21771#comment-28406[…] was an interesting article on Pushkin, talking about the industry of Pushkin, and giving a good biography of […]
]]>By: Lucky Jimhttp://www.openlettersmonthly.com/tea-with-the-pushkins-in-brussels/comment-page-1/#comment-28173
Sat, 05 Jan 2013 11:22:01 +0000http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/?p=21771#comment-28173What a lively round-up of recent Pushkin activity. The range of projects mentioned in the article is astonishing. And the West African connection was a real surprise to me. It makes one wish that there was an ongoing Pushkin blog that tracked all of this activity. It does indeed seem like there is a revival going on.
]]>By: Andreihttp://www.openlettersmonthly.com/tea-with-the-pushkins-in-brussels/comment-page-1/#comment-28118
Fri, 04 Jan 2013 13:24:39 +0000http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/?p=21771#comment-28118To me as a Russian familiar with Ukrainian and Polish, Jirka is obviously right. There’s nothing so special about our grammar as compared to other Slavic languages.
What’s more, I’m sure ‘a Mozartian fluidity’ hardly explains why Pushkin is ‘our everything’ to Russians from every walk of life.
The answer lies in the notorious Russian soul, often called ‘mysterious’ by non-Russians. Westerners who have Russian friends may grasp it if they realize that the Russian idea of true friendship is somewhat different. It’s more than just a matter of trust, or mutual liking, or whatever you mean by calling someone your friend. It can be described as a union of souls, a kind of soul-to-soul intimacy rarely found even between long-time friends who were not raised on the Russian soil.
When a Russian reads Pushkin’s lines, s/he gets the feeling that the author finds the most precise words to speak his mind and heart to him/her personally, as he would to his closest and dearest friend, tete-a-tete. This unique manner of Pushkin’s best writing is extremely heart-moving, but you must have (or somehow develop) at least a “Russian streak” in yourself to fully appreciate its intensity. And this is why Pushkin is so hard to translate.
No wonder Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, as well as other Russian literary giants, are so famous worldwide for their mastery in expressing the subtlest nuances of the inner lives of human souls. It was Pushkin who taught us all, and the classics were just the best students.
]]>By: Michaelhttp://www.openlettersmonthly.com/tea-with-the-pushkins-in-brussels/comment-page-1/#comment-28069
Thu, 03 Jan 2013 23:00:00 +0000http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/?p=21771#comment-28069Actually, I’m pretty sure the Belgian Alexander Pushkin is the poet’s great-great grandson, and not great grandson.
]]>By: Jirkahttp://www.openlettersmonthly.com/tea-with-the-pushkins-in-brussels/comment-page-1/#comment-28058
Thu, 03 Jan 2013 18:48:21 +0000http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/?p=21771#comment-28058Ben Dickinson:
You may be right.
My native language is Czech and it is also a very flective language – e.g we have seven cases for nouns and adjectives, verbs are also highly inflected, though not quite in the same way as in Russian.

There seems to be no particular difficulty in translating Pushkin to Czech. and he has always been quite popular here. Of course, Czech is a Slavic language just like Russian and knowledge of Russian was widespread even among Pushkins literary contemporaries in Bohemia. Translating from Russian has a long tradition where I live.

Btw. “Russophilia” in our country is quite unrelated to the attitude to the former Soviet Union. Some noted russophiles were fiercely antibolshevik.

]]>By: Ben Dickinsonhttp://www.openlettersmonthly.com/tea-with-the-pushkins-in-brussels/comment-page-1/#comment-28050
Thu, 03 Jan 2013 16:35:48 +0000http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/?p=21771#comment-28050Why, unlike his fellow world literary giants, is Pushkin so “locked” inside the Russian language and tradition? I believe it comes down to grammar: Russian is so highly inflected—with six grammatical cases governing the endings on both nouns and adjectives, plus a variety of gender endings on same, and different inflections for singular and plural number in each case—that Russian poetry can achieve a Mozartian fluidity of meter and rhyme while yet preserving vast subtlety and nuance. And because it is so highly inflected, its syntactical flexibility is also much more commodious than, for example, English–so word orders that achieve perfect rhymes can sound utterly natural and unaffected in Russian, while appearing hopelessly stilted, archaic, or clumsy in their closest English approximation. I recommend listening to a few recordings of shorter Pushkin works just for the sound of the language. Here are a couple of Wikipedia entries that provide something of a gloss on what I’m talking about:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declensionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_grammar
]]>By: Jirkahttp://www.openlettersmonthly.com/tea-with-the-pushkins-in-brussels/comment-page-1/#comment-28047
Thu, 03 Jan 2013 15:46:54 +0000http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/?p=21771#comment-28047“Although a free-thinker, he owned serfs.” – “Pushkin was one of the first Russians to live entirely on earnings from his writing, and therefore was perpetually in debt”

These two sentences seem to be in contradiction.

I am no expert in the life of Puschkin but I seem to recall that at the time he lived at the main family estate of his family, Boldino, he owned a nearby village of Kistenevo including its two hundred “souls”. He finished Onegin in Boldino and wrote other important works there.

]]>By: Bruce Lewishttp://www.openlettersmonthly.com/tea-with-the-pushkins-in-brussels/comment-page-1/#comment-28035
Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:03:01 +0000http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/?p=21771#comment-28035I think that one of the main reasons that Pushkin has been ignored in the English-speaking world is that oeuvre does not seem to be in the same spiritual vein as the novels of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy and Bulgakov. In the early 20th century, and, in particular, among the British critics, it seems that it was decided that Russians are a spiritually tormented race. Pushkin may have been “tormented” by many aspects of life, but he does not seem to have been, ever, on any kind of spiritual journey–but to have been purely a child of the European Enlightenment, like Byron–and like Nabokov himself (and we know what Nabokov thought of Dostoevsky!)
]]>By: Michael Beckelhimerhttp://www.openlettersmonthly.com/tea-with-the-pushkins-in-brussels/comment-page-1/#comment-28006
Wed, 02 Jan 2013 20:45:45 +0000http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/?p=21771#comment-28006Wonderful piece! As a late-80’s Soviet studies major, I spent more time memorizing the names of Politburo members than I did reading Pushkin. Pushkin was (I thought) a flat, state-sponsored focus of propaganda. Recently, when I set out to research and write a film about Russians’ connection to their literature, I discovered that Pushkin is a far more interesting subject than I ever knew. Mainly, though, I found it extremely satisfying to dive into Pushkin’s works and realize that he was a genius, just like the Russians always say. In the beautiful article above, Michael does a fantastic job of conveying the excitement of Pushkin’s biography and his writings.
]]>